Is/Should being a Nazi in the U.S. be illegal?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And what if that doesn't work?

Then it doesn't work. At least I tried. But I won't ban any party simply because I disagree with their views.

So your position is: I stand for a liberal society and the rights and freedoms it entails, but I will refuse to violate any of them even if it means that all rights and freedoms for everyone will be destroyed.

Surely you think that more violations are worse than less?

[Az]

So your position is: I stand for a liberal society and the rights and freedoms it entails, but I will refuse to violate any of them even if it means that all rights and freedoms for everyone will be destroyed.

So you're pro-religious/racial profiling?

[/devil's advocate]

[GePap]

No. Unless a party advocates violence against others, it should be allowed to remain active. If you ban a group, what you are saying is that you fear it, believe it may actually have power one day. If you et them in but ignore them, what you are syaing is that they are so contemptible, they don;t deserv attantion, one way or another. And that is the way to treat Nazi's, with contempt.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel

So your position is: I stand for a liberal society and the rights and freedoms it entails, but I will refuse to violate any of them even if it means that all rights and freedoms for everyone will be destroyed.

So you're pro-religious/racial profiling?

[/devil's advocate]

Only if it solves more problems than it creates.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
No. Unless a party advocates violence against others, it should be allowed to remain active. If you ban a group, what you are saying is that you fear it, believe it may actually have power one day. If you et them in but ignore them, what you are syaing is that they are so contemptible, they don;t deserv attantion, one way or another. And that is the way to treat Nazi's, with contempt.

I agree GePap, but Imran is saying that we should do nothing, even if the Nazis were on the verge of seizing power. I find that a bit strange.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Agathon
I agree GePap, but Imran is saying that we should do nothing, even if the Nazis were on the verge of seizing power. I find that a bit strange.

I find the idea of taking away their freedoms stranger. It is simply wrong to take freedoms away from people just for having an opinion. Period. The idea is morally bankrupt.

Imran isn't saying we should do nothing; in fact, I am willing to bet he would fight such a party tooth and nail. Still, why he may try his best to keep them out of power, he respects the fact that they have their rights to speech just as he has his.

To think otherwise is a basic rejection of the civil liberties we stand for, and cannot be ethically justified in a liberal society.

[Az]

Only if it solves more problems than it creates.

We can work something out, I am sure.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
So you'd overturn democracy in its own name? Even if the Nazis had the support of the majority of citizens I still think it would be justifiable to suppress them. My reason is that a democracy isn't "anything goes" but a political form that has definite limits. If we believe in the preservation of democracy more than we believe in this or that temporary government then suppressing the Nazis is the rational thing to do.

You can't tell me that you care about freedom of speech if you think that it is OK to allow a course of action that leads to more free speech violations (by the Nazis) than a course of action that requires less (you suppressing them).

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, can't the Nazis say "even though you have the majority, we should still suppress your opinions." Also, we have the constitution. If the Nazis have the support to change the CONSTITUTION to allow their activities...

You have to see that you have to CONVINCE the people that you are right. You can't just act out on your own, without their consent. That sort of thinking is used to justify THEIR actions.

In fact, if each moral viewpoint is subjective and has no binding claim on others, then the purported "right" for these people to hold their own views is also subjective and therefore a figment of your imagination. So if you are a subjectivist you cannot find an objectively binding reason why I shouldn't shoot the Nazis.

I'm not arguing MORAL subjectivity. I'm arguing that the objective morality that we SHOULD follow is the one that is decided by the majority. Note that I'm not saying that the morality ITSELF would be "right", or that you shouldn't PROTEST the current morality, but that you SHOULD obey it.

That's a fair comment. However, my example only holds when things have got out of hand and there is a realistic prospect of them getting in whatever arguments people put forward.

I'm saying that, if you arrest them when they commit crimes, they won't get out of hand, unless they have the support of the majority.

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Kidicious [/SIZE}
Unfortunately people break the law and get away with it.

Well, that's not an argument for making more things illegal (ESPECIALLY constitutionally protected rights) but for trying to improve our police, etc. so that people don't get away with breaking the law.

Finally, if they ADVOCATE violence, their views should be heard. Violence is only illegal because there are laws against it (tautology ) but they should be free to petition to change the laws.

Originally posted by Agathon

Originally posted by Imram Siddiqui
Hammered out in forms of free discourse and pointing out the fallacies.

And what if that doesn't work?

Then they have the support of the majority! They have convinced the people that they are correct.

Originally posted by Gepap
No. Unless a party advocates violence against others, it should be allowed to remain active.

No, unless a party incites violence against others. It is their right to petition for a change in the law.

Originally posted by Agathon
I agree GePap, but Imran is saying that we should do nothing, even if the Nazis were on the verge of seizing power. I find that a bit strange.

No, Imram is saying, as I do, that we should do nothing unless they try to seize power illegally. If they do so by convincing the majority, they SHOULD be in power. Also, we can argue against their views. The net result is, the set of views the majority finds the most logical/valid/convincing will be selected!

(must be the 10th or 20th time I've made that point in this thread )

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran isn't saying we should do nothing; in fact, I am willing to bet he would fight such a party tooth and nail. Still, why he may try his best to keep them out of power, he respects the fact that they have their rights to speech just as he has his.

I also agree with GePap (kind of). If the party leaders stand up there incite violence, put them all away. Also the guys that talk about other things to stay, but get all the violence dudes out and in jail.

[Kuciwalker]

YAY! I was afraid this thread was going to fall off of the page. I want to see a thread reach the 500 mark

[Kidlicious]

No you don't. Trust me. It's not pretty.

[Kuciwalker]

OT WARNING!

wait a second...

[Kuciwalker]

Didn't Voltaire say something like "I may not like what you have to say, but I will give my life that you may be allowed to say it!"? Or was it someone else?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, can't the Nazis say "even though you have the majority, we should still suppress your opinions." Also, we have the constitution. If the Nazis have the support to change the CONSTITUTION to allow their activities...

You have to see that you have to CONVINCE the people that you are right. You can't just act out on your own, without their consent. That sort of thinking is used to justify THEIR actions.

If you are going to have a liberal-democracy because it's the best form of goverment then it is non-negotiable. Presumably, what justifies any party being in power is that they represent the will of the majority. Unfortunately, if the Nazis get in and act true to form they will disband democracy, thus making themselves an illegitimate government. Similarly if you let them get in they will abolish the various rights and freedoms that are supposed to be protected.

At some point in any political system certain values are non-negotiable if the system is to be preserved. That's why it's justifiable to suppress the Nazis if they become too powerful.

I'm not arguing MORAL subjectivity. I'm arguing that the objective morality that we SHOULD follow is the one that is decided by the majority. Note that I'm not saying that the morality ITSELF would be "right", or that you shouldn't PROTEST the current morality, but that you SHOULD obey it.

If a Nazi government told me to gas Jews, I sure as hell wouldn't do it, and damn the majority.

I'm saying that, if you arrest them when they commit crimes, they won't get out of hand, unless they have the support of the majority.

And if they do, what then. It would be an act of terrible irresponsibility not to stop the Nazis from taking power by any means possible.

Then they have the support of the majority! They have convinced the people that they are correct.

Then democracy will be destroyed. You can't defend the destruction of democracy on democratic grounds - it's irrational and self contradictory to do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Didn't Voltaire say something like "I may not like what you have to say, but I will give my life that you may be allowed to say it!"? Or was it someone else?

"I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it."

-Voltaire.

Though I must say that I prefer Milton in Areopagitica:

"Let truth and falsehood grapple. Whoever knew truth to be the lesser in a free and open encounter?"