Germany’s centre-Right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD), which are holding coalition talks, have proposed a law that will block people with multiple extremism convictions from standing in elections.
Germany’s centre-Right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD), which are holding coalition talks, have proposed a law that will block people with multiple extremism convictions from standing in elections.
Its amazing how things work, the defendors of the democracy are asking to ban a political party. Do this exercise with me, imagine a country where the majority of people want a “far-right” party to rule them, they voted for them on a free and clean election. It can be for a lot of reasons, security, education, social paradox, conservative economic reasons, emigration… whatever, you choose, what would you do? Deny the will of the majority of the people from that country or let them freely choose what they want like true defendors of free will? Im not judging im just curious, i know my answer but i want to ear yours
Protecting minorities from the terror of the majority and protecting democracy for future generations that cannot vote yet are essential parts of democracy.
To answer your question:
yes, because what you describe is not democracy, it’s mob rule
First part i agree with you but this one makes no sense to me, you are telling me that its only democracy when people align with your views, if they dont think the way you do “is not democracy”. I dont agree with this one tbh.
This is a paradox well described by Popper. The gist is: You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.
Yep, The paradox of Tolerance. Its way more deep that we think it is
I never considered it all that much of a paradox. If anything, it’s a linguistic contradiction. It’s a question of whether we should tolerate someone (in-)directly causing/wishing harm onto others. It also doesn’t matter whether they understand it themselves.
A lot of aspects that are considered “political”, are arguably just “harm onto A that benefits B”. I think it is right to call these out. Universal health care, education, affordable housing, etc. Take off the capitalistic monocle, and certain “rights” and “wrongs” are painfully obvious.
Yes. Would you allow a company to sell actual poison that is marketed as a health food? What if a study showed 50.1% of all people believed it was not actually poisonous because of a successful marketing campaign by the company? What if innocent babies and children were ingesting this poison because their parents believed it was safe?
What if all those people believed companies shouldn’t be allowed to sell poison. But that this company should be allowed to sell their product because they mistakenly believe it’s not poison.
If you agree with banning a child killing poison but not with banning a far right party, please explain how it’s fundamentally any different.
I would allow that company to sell poison.
But I would not allow them to market it as health food.
If a party campaigns on far right ideals, and get elected, then fair enough, that’s democracy. Sometimes you have to admit that your views are not wanted.
However, if a far right party campaigns on truth and love and free kittens for everyone, then instead is shown to be liars and haters and give out free guns, then I would have an issue.
OK Adolf.
Free speech is only allowed if you agree with it, huh?
There we go… Your arguments are indeed so strong that im speechless, you are a comunication guru my friend