WillieT · 61-69, M
Communism is in no way a Democracy, and when they are so unhinged they're destroying themselves, don't interfere.
Since people in the comments are already saying this would be anti-democratic, let me explain something.
We already ban children from voting. Banning certain people from voting isn't necessarily undemocratic.
Some things can be made stronger by taking elements away. Taking Authoritarians out of a Republic makes the Republic stronger. Now I don't think it should be illegal to be authoritarian. But if we ban Authoritarians from voting or holding public office, our system of democracy becomes stronger. Much like it's stronger for not allowing children to vote.
We already ban children from voting. Banning certain people from voting isn't necessarily undemocratic.
Some things can be made stronger by taking elements away. Taking Authoritarians out of a Republic makes the Republic stronger. Now I don't think it should be illegal to be authoritarian. But if we ban Authoritarians from voting or holding public office, our system of democracy becomes stronger. Much like it's stronger for not allowing children to vote.
View 1 more replies »
This message was deleted by its author.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@SatanBurger Exactly!
LadyInTheTower · 36-40, F
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@LadyInTheTower I don't think so. It shouldn't be a question if it's about the basic principles of democracy, there should never be an option to destroy it. Like for example there shouldn't ever exist a group of people that could bring back like slavery for example. A group like that can't exist in a healthy democracy as it goes against the principles of one.
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@DunningKruger No, it's to protect the freedom of democracy. For example a group of people should never be able to bring back things like slavery, even if many people vote for it, it should never be a debate.
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
@Luke73 That isn't how democracy works, son. We'd like to think that it is, but it's not. "OK, we can have democracy, but only for the things I like" is authoritarianism, even if one's intentions are good.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@DunningKruger It's not for the things I like. If your view is to take away basic freedoms and basic rights, then you're going against the core of a free democracy. It's not about if the taxes are higher or lower, it's about wether you believe everyone should have equal rights and the freedom to express themselves how they want. Especially those rights are getting taken away from people more and more.
val70 · 56-60
Of course, my thoughts go to the ancient questions that always direct one to think further: who will decide what's anti-democratic? In order to have a state based on law one needs to accept diversity of opinion. Liberal democracy didn't kill off the Weimar Republik, nor the free vote either.
peterlee · M
Sadly only 55% of the UK electorate vote. The other 45% deserve the government they get.
Of course, the homeless or those in temporary accommodation are disenfranchised.. This should not be the case.
Of course, the homeless or those in temporary accommodation are disenfranchised.. This should not be the case.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
Right
But the concept of anti-democratic views had been historically defined in ways that are anti-democratic in themselves.
May be a way to test them is if they took risks to create conditions for everybody to vote and to grant wide freedom WHEN such rights are restricted or forbiden
But the concept of anti-democratic views had been historically defined in ways that are anti-democratic in themselves.
May be a way to test them is if they took risks to create conditions for everybody to vote and to grant wide freedom WHEN such rights are restricted or forbiden
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@Luke73
Along history and today:
- Dictatorships and autocratic governments restrict, forbid democratic rights and / or vote in the name of what they define as "democratic values"
- Converselly, some governments that had origin in democratic vote use said validation to make less than democratic politics
Along history and today:
- Dictatorships and autocratic governments restrict, forbid democratic rights and / or vote in the name of what they define as "democratic values"
- Converselly, some governments that had origin in democratic vote use said validation to make less than democratic politics
bijouxbroussard · F
What we have been seeing is that going forward, whoever is in charge may have the power to define what is "anti-democratic".
For example, those in office currently agreed with the armed January 6 rioters and saw nothing "anti-democratic" about them attacking and vandalizing a government building.
However, this same president sent the National Guard in to stop unarmed protesters from exercising their right to protest against ICE’s brutality. And he threatened to send them against citizens protesting against police harassment and brutality.
For example, those in office currently agreed with the armed January 6 rioters and saw nothing "anti-democratic" about them attacking and vandalizing a government building.
However, this same president sent the National Guard in to stop unarmed protesters from exercising their right to protest against ICE’s brutality. And he threatened to send them against citizens protesting against police harassment and brutality.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@bijouxbroussard People lie. And that’s why it needs to be stopped that those can get any political power.
Rabscuttle · 41-45
MethDozer · M
@Rabscuttle no it is not.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@Rabscuttle That's not true. Supporting freedom means proactively protecting rights and if someone tries to take them away, stand against that.
anythingoes477 · M
So just to recap...........you are intolerant of anyone who don't participate in politics......and we should not tolerate..........intolerance.
Hmmmm?
Hmmmm?
anythingoes477 · M
@Luke73 NO.... but what exactly does that have to do with the irony of you saying you're intolerant.... of intolerance?
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@anythingoes477 Not "believing" in science is against democracy.
anythingoes477 · M
@Luke73 Trying to foilow you is making me tired. What have you got? Attention deficit disorder??? How many topics do you bring up at once and none of them connected?
4meAndyou · F
Well, I see you are from Germany. German citizens only are allowed to vote in your elections.
ONE of the stipulations that I see regarding your voting laws is that votes are confidential. In other words, you can't KNOW that someone voted a certain way.
I see you disapprove of anyone who tries to dismantle your German democracy...and I would suggest that the only thing you can do about that, IF that person is a politician, is NOT to vote for him or her. (And perhaps convince your friends not to do so).
If ANY party...even one with which you disagree...meets the 5% hurdle rule, they are allowed to enter Parliament.
ONE of the stipulations that I see regarding your voting laws is that votes are confidential. In other words, you can't KNOW that someone voted a certain way.
I see you disapprove of anyone who tries to dismantle your German democracy...and I would suggest that the only thing you can do about that, IF that person is a politician, is NOT to vote for him or her. (And perhaps convince your friends not to do so).
If ANY party...even one with which you disagree...meets the 5% hurdle rule, they are allowed to enter Parliament.
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
MethDozer · M
That's not democratic